Birth Control

[inchristalone221]

Martin Luther once proclaimed that "the purpose of marriage is not pleasure and ease but the procreation and education of children and the support of a family.... People who do not like children are swine, dunces, and blockheads, not worthy to be called men and women, because they despise the blessing of God, the Creator and Author of marriage" (Christian History, Issue 39, p. 24).

Luther also said that birth control was the equivalent of (probably because of the likeness between homosexual wickedness and impotent ).

John Calvin declared that birth control was the murder of future persons and the Synod of Dort issued a Bible commentary which stated that contraception was the same as abortion.

If you are shocked by the strong statements from these Godly men, that really is not too surprising, because Protestant opposition to birth control has largely been forgotten in our decadent 21st century.

If you want to know about Biblical principles which oppose contraception, or wish to know what the Reformers and their heirs thought about this important subject, we certainly hope that you will get this book!

The Bible and Birth Control Super Sale
http://www.swrb.com/Puritan/bible-birth-control.htm

I'm curious, does anyone know what the argument is for this attitude toward marriage and birth control? Specifically this quote from Luther:

[font=&quot]

the purpose of marriage is not pleasure and ease but the procreation and education of children and the support of a family[font=&quot]

Don't get me wrong, I love Luther, but this seems to be a rather absurd statement. The purpose of marriage is typology.[/font][/font]

 

[ghs1994]

If it wasn't in God's will, we never would have been able to come up with birth control anyway.

 

[inchristalone221]

If it wasn't in God's will, we never would have been able to come up with birth control anyway.

I would certainly have to avoid that logic, because God's will includes the holocaust and the inquisition as well. Being part of God's sovereign will does not make something a part of his moral will.

 

[ghs1994]

I would certainly have to avoid that logic, because God's will includes the holocaust and the inquisition as well. Being part of God's sovereign will does not make something a part of his moral will.

Ooooooo.......becareful now. I see that Calvanist sign by your name there.

There's nothing in this world that happens without God allowing it.

 

[inchristalone221]

There's nothing in this world that happens without God allowing it.

100% accurate sir. However, that does not help me much with this issue at hand, as murder is among the things God allows from time to time, yet it is something from which I hope to refrain

Ooooooo.......becareful now. I see that Calvanist sign by your name there.

It's only there because there was no icon for "raving 5-point, supralapsarian, determinist Calvinist"

 

[ghs1994]

100% accurate sir. However, that does not help me much with this issue at hand, as murder is among the things God allows from time to time, yet it is something from which I hope to refrain

Yea me too.

It's only there because there was no icon for "raving 5-point, supralapsarian, determinist Calvinist"

LOL. One of those Calvanists huh?

 

[inchristalone221]

LOL. One of those Calvanists huh?

Yeah

 

[JJB]

Perhaps Luther is distinguishing between the practical/pragmatic aspects and the spiritual/typology aspects? Or perhaps he was just ranting against the RC requirements of singleness for priests? Just an idea or two........

 

[inchristalone221]

I'm really hoping he did not mean to imply that marital intimacy without the prospect of children is wrong. Surely the implications of this go beyond what most are willing to accept. This would mean the sterile individuals in the church should not marry at all, which seems to be a counter-scriptural idea.

Anyway, does he provide some scriptural argument with this? Does anyone have some idea of when and where he said this?

 

[strengthinweakness]

I basically agree with Luther and Calvin on this subject. Until the Anglican Lambeth Conference of 1930, no church, none whatsoever, Catholic or Protestant, endorsed artificial contraception as a Biblically valid option for Christians. God designed the sexual act of intercourse between a man and a woman to naturally result in the procreation of children. Now, obviously, sin has led many couples to have children outside of the God-ordained covenant of marriage, but that fact does not mean that married Christian couples should feel free to enjoy the pleasure of sexual intercourse, while blatantly defying God's design, as to the natural result of that act. This does not mean that every single act of sexual intercourse necessarily has to or will result in the procreation of children. God also designed the female reproductive system so that it is more naturally fertile at certain times than at others. The Natural Family Planning method (which is not the same as the notoriously unpredictable "rhythm method") has been shown to be as effective as the birth control pill in spacing the procreation of children, and unlike the pill, the NFP method does not result in abortions (see Randy Alcorn's short but informative book, Does The Birth Control Pill Cause Abortions? for more information), and it respects the integrity and beauty of the act of sexual intercourse as God designed it. 21st-century evangelical Christianity decries abortion while largely embracing artificial contraception, which inherently does not respect God's natural design for the sexual act. I don't understand this contradiction, other than as another way in which the Christian church at large has accomodated itself to worldly, non-Christian thinking and standards of behavior. The sexual act of intercourse is not simply "ours" to practice in whatever way we may please. It was designed by God, given to us by God, and we should respect it as He designed it. I realize that this view of the sexual act is very controversial in modern-day Christianity, but given that the Christian church as a whole up to 1930 embraced this view, I think that the controversy says more about the worldly mindset of many modern-day Christians than it says about the supposed "out-dated" nature of the view itself.

 

[Beoga]

I don't really see the point of birth control, God is Sovereign, if He has decreed that a couple have a child, nothing will be able to prevent that. If a couple believes that the means by which God has ordained for them not to have children for a time is through birth control, and they can take/use the birth control in faith, then go ahead. Yet, I still say God is the best "birth control."

 

[Proeliator]

LOL. One of those Calvanists huh?

There is another kind?

 

[Proeliator]

The Natural Family Planning method (which is not the same as the notoriously unpredictable "rhythm method") has been shown to be as effective as the birth control pill in spacing the procreation of children, and unlike the pill, the NFP method does not result in abortions (see Randy Alcorn's short but informative book, Does The Birth Control Pill Cause Abortions? for more information), and it respects the integrity and beauty of the act of sexual intercourse as God designed it.

I would have to disagree here. If you are going to be a stickler on birth control, its all or none; since NFP is a way of avoiding pregnancy, its a form of birth control.

 

[battlepig]

I would respectfully disagree with Calvin and Luther here. Where exactly does the bible state that the design of sex is procreation? Almost every bible passage that deals with sex deals with it primarily as a pleasure. When a passage mentions sex positively, it typically deals with the enjoyment of sex within the marriage bed. When it condemns the abuse of sex, the bible is almost always dealing with fornication/adultery/sodomy - seeking sexual pleasure from unlawful sources. I cannot think of a single place where the bible connects sex and children in the way that would support the kinds of statements in the OP. And no, I don't believe Genesis 38 and the story of Onan teaches what so many have tried to force it to mean.


Children are indeed a blessing and i agree with Luther a couple that wants none is twisted. But the simple fact is that bible never once addresses the issue of family planning nor does it ever condemn it. I believe the issue of birth control ( not resulting in abortions) should be left up to the conscience of each couple before God. If the bible has not issued any absolute commands, neither should we.

While it is true our society has gone of the deep end morally, the 'strictest' or most conservative view is not always the most biblical.

 

[JJB]

Recently, I have heard on a Christian radio show -- I don't recall which one, sorry -- that many young Christian women who are entering college weigh the choices that face them now: career or family. They espoused that as children of working mothers, many felt lonely and do not want their children to experience that. It is also a backlash at the feminist movement that women can be and do any and all.

If these young women choose career, I do not recall if they said they would also choose to remain single.

Have any of you younger folks heard this dilemma? Is it discussed in the circles you hang out in?

 

[Erinwilcox]

There is another kind?

Yeah, that's what I thought!

 

[calmcoolandelected]

OK, here's one for you:


What about someone (wife specifically) who is ill and pregnancy might cause illness to worsen? If illness is worsens, she would not be able to care for children?

Obviously, this was me. I was very ill after the birth of my second child and in bed for a full year. I could not care for my family and we had to have full-time help (my mother). It took a couple of years after that before I could have any semblance of a normal life. My husband and I wanted a larger family but we believe that it wasn't God's will for us.

I know this doesn't fall into the neat category of birth control as most people use it, but we have endured a lot of grief from well-meaning individuals because of our "mostly empty quiver" and "lack of faith". I'm probably just a little bit sensitive, pls forgive me.

CC&E

 

[battlepig]

calmcoolandelected, that is precisely my point. God calls us to be prudent and wise in the decisions we make. The only time we ignore common sense and plunge blindly ahead is when we have a direct command or promise from God. And on this topic we don't have an absolute one.

Ok, don't stone me as a liberal, but this is what i think ( off course i am open to correction ). Children are a blessing yes, but so is rain. And didn't the flood teach us that there can be too much of a good thing? The bible says many times that God blesses righteous men with riches (pr 22:4) but the bible also warns much about the dangers of riches. Though something maybe a blessing, we must be wise and prudent in our use of things. I have not yet seen a biblical, not sentimental or emotional or 'moral' argument that makes children a special case.

A large family is a blessing if you can afford one ( i don't mean financially only ). But having a full quiver is not being loaded down with as many arrows as you can possibly carry. There are many duties in our christian lives that take up our time and effort. Duties toward God ( bible reading, prayer, time, affection, meditation), Duties to our spouses ( emotional, romantic, sexual, financial, teaching), duties to children ( teaching, love, inheritance, marriage, guidance, etc) duties to parents, duties to church, duties to employers, and on and on. Too many children can potentially affect all of these aspects of the christian life negatively.

I do believe God made women to have a fairly predictable reproductive cycle partly so we could exercise wisdom in this area. Off course sometimes he will override our choices, but that does not overthrow the general principle.

I will say again, i cannot find a single verse in the bible that condemns birth control. But no matter what people today may rant and rave about Onan ,the bible no where ever condemns any (natural) sexual act between a man and wife.Yes, yes, i am aware that i am in disagreement with almost (all?) all of the puritans and reformers, but despite my respect for them, i do believe this is one area that they erred in.

 

[AndOne]

There is an excellent book out on the topic of intimate sex called "Sex and The Supremecy of Christ." It is a compilation of inputs from various reformed theologians on the topic such as John Piper (who actually put the book together) and C. J. Mahaney to name a couple. There is a good section in that book that discusses what the puritans actually taught and believed regarding this subject. Some of you might be surprised at what they actually believed on this.

There is no discussion on birth control, however.

 

[rnmomof7]

If God ordains the conception of an infant it is done, we do not control our fertility God does.

The idea that somehow we are sovereign over the size of our family is contrary to scripture.

One "forgets " the pill or the condom breaks or the date on the calendar was wrong or the vasectomy fails etc.

As a nurse I have heard all kinds of incredible things, a friend of my son had a failure of his vasectomy many YEARS after it was done.

A woman in England had a baby even though her womb was removed, the fertilized egg attached to her colon .

Sex was ordained of God to be pleasure-full and bonding between a husband and wife. He uses the picture of intimacy between a husband and wife to show how Christ is with His bride the church.